AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesBorsody v. Frontier Heritage Communities
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Borsody v. Frontier Heritage Communities

D. Kansas · Nov 4, 2025

KS / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscivil rightstrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Court issued a formal admonition to the pro se plaintiff after she included a non-existent case citation in her response brief, which the Court attributed to the use of generative artificial intelligence. The plaintiff was warned to verify the accuracy of all legal citations and to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's response cited 'Alford v. City of Canon City, 2019 WL 13202842, at *3 (D. Colo. Mar. 29, 2019),' which neither the Court nor defense counsel could locate; Court treated it as a non-existent citation and admonished plaintiff to verify AI-generated citations.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Kansas, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In this civil rights action, the District Court for the District of Kansas granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. During the proceedings, the pro se plaintiff submitted a response brief containing a citation to a case that did not exist. The Court noted that neither it nor defense counsel could locate the cited authority, leading to the conclusion that the plaintiff likely utilized generative artificial intelligence to draft the filing. Consequently, the Court issued a formal admonition to the plaintiff, cautioning against the use of AI for drafting legal documents or citing cases without verifying their accuracy, and directed the plaintiff to review the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Kansas, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

KansasSingle-state evidence scope
Explore KSOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Kansas
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateNov 4, 2025
GE
AI toolGenerative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and issued an admonition to the pro se plaintiff regarding the use of AI and citation accuracy.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The Court inferred the use of generative artificial intelligence.

Procedural posture

The Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and denied the plaintiff's motion for entry of default and sanctions.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's response cited 'Alford v. City of Canon City, 2019 WL 13202842, at *3 (D. Colo. Mar. 29, 2019),' which neither the Court nor defense counsel could locate; Court treated it as a non-existent citation and admonished plaintiff to verify AI-generated citations.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Borsody v. Frontier Heritage Communities?
The Court issued a formal admonition to the pro se plaintiff after she included a non-existent case citation in her response brief, which the Court attributed to the use of generative artificial intelligence. The plaintiff was warned to verify the accuracy of all legal citations and to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Why does Borsody v. Frontier Heritage Communities matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Kansas, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Borsody v. Frontier Heritage Communities?
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Borsody v. Frontier Heritage Communities summary?
The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Zesiger v. Kansas et al.D. Kansas · Mar 17, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsMcLain v. Board of County Commissioners of Sedgwick County, Kansas, et al.D. Kansas · Dec 11, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsDouglas Stuart Queen v. Kansas City et al.D. Kansas · Oct 7, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsFord v. Sherwin-WilliamsD. Kansas · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsRoosevelt Hunt, Jr. v. True Sky Federal Credit UnionD. Kansas · Feb 25, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsKennon v. AshleyD. Kansas · Feb 18, 2026same court · fake citations + civil rights